Document:CGST-2011-3

EU transport statistics

CoordinatingGroup for Statistics on Transport (CGST)

Luxembourg, 14-15December 2011

BechBuilding

Room Ampère

Beginning 10.00 a.m.

Minutesof the previousmeeting

Minutes of the meeting of the
Coordinating Groupfor Statistics on Transport (CGST)
Luxembourg, 15-16 December 2010

The CGSTmeets once a year. The main aimsof its meeting in 2010 were:

–to review the progress made inimplementing the Community acquis on transport statistics in Eurostat, the MemberStates and other participating countries;

–to examine the feasibility of new developments awaitedby major users, particularly in the light of the resource problems faced by several partners.

This CGST meeting was attended by 32European countries: 27 EU Member States, two candidate countries (Croatia and Turkey), Serbia, Switzerlandand Norway. Also present were: UNECE, ITF (International Transport Forum), Eurocontrol, ECSA (European Community Shipowners' Associations),CCNR (Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine), IRU (International Road Transport Union), UIC (Union Internationale des Chemins de fer). DG MOVE and EMSA (European Maritime Safety Agency) also attended the meeting.

Item 1: Opening address

Mr Diaz Muñoz, Director of "Sectoral and Regional Statistics" in Eurostat, welcomed those present and introduced the new faces in Eurostat/E6 and DG MOVE.

  • Ms Roman Enescu replaced Ms Crocicchi at the head of Eurostat/E6 on 1 November 2010; Mr Crocicchi retired on the same date following a full recovery from a long illness.
  • Mr Huub Cloodt was the head of project for aviation statistics and ILSE.
  • Ms Monika Wrzesinska wasthe head of project for road freight transport and for passenger mobility statistics, as well as the coordinator for measuring the air emissions of the transport sector.
  • Mr Alessio Scian[1]was the head of project for inland waterways transport statistics and for road traffic measurement.
  • During 2010, DG TREN – our main user –was split into DG ENER (Energy) and DG MOVE (Mobility and Transport) and our contact person, Mr Andreas Nägele, was replaced by Mr Luca Protti who had been an official in Eurostat some years ago.

Mr Diaz Muñoz recalled that the CGST acts in the more general framework of the ESS (European Statistical System), which is dealing with the budgetary problems of several members. As a result, the ESS Committee is looking for ways of simplifying the EU data collections, such as more recourse to administrative data, reuse of existing data, etc.

Item 2: Adoption of the agenda

The draft agenda consisted of two major parts. The first part was devoted to the present (compliance assessment and review of the processes), while the second was intendedto address the future (proposals and discussions about the projects).

.

The draft agendawas approvedsubject to one change in the timetable.Item 8 (work programme for the coming years) was inserted after item 4 (recent developments in EU transport policy).

DE remarked that some working documents had been made available to the participants quite late, and that the documents were only available in EN. Mr Diaz Muñoz acknowledged that an effort had to be made to improve timeliness in the future, in particular so asto facilitate internal consultations at national level. He alsoannounced that the documents would no longer be translated, as this was also the rule in the meetings of theother Working Groups and Directors’ Groups.

Item 3: Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the previous CGST meeting were adopted without comment.

Item 4: Recent developments in EU transport policy

The policy context was set outby Mr Protti from DG MOVE.His presentation focused mainly on the following aspects:

  • the signs of recovery of economic activity in 2010, which were reflected in the trends in the transport sector
  • DG MOVE's current major policy activity:
  • the upcoming White Paper on transport, which would encompass a vision of the sector, its trends and challenges at the horizon of 2050; in order to prepare policies for the long term, DG MOVE made intensive use of modelling techniques, which required reliable statistical data as their main input;
  • other DG MOVE initiatives,of a legal nature, including work on
  • a European platform for the exchange of road vehicle data (including mileage) among national administrations;
  • rights of passengers travelling by bus and coach on the one hand; and by sea and inland waterway on the other hand;
  • road safety, in particular to reduce injuries caused by road accidents;
  • the data needs which result from these initiatives, including:
  • TKm, PKm, VKm, broken down among goods and passengers, with the top priority being given to road;
  • investment and use of the transport infrastructures (which would entailthe modernisation of Regulation 1108/70);
  • urban mobility (in particular the modal split for passengers);
  • intermodality;
  • employment and skills in the transport sector;
  • accessibility and congestion.

The ITF supported the need to work on road injuries, but emphasized the difficulty of adopting harmonised definitions. The ITF also mentioned their annual voluntary collection on data related to investment in transport infrastructures. DG MOVE preferred a data collection based on a legal act in order to have a complete and harmonised set of data.

DK observed that the various trends presented by DG MOVE were based on the trend of variables between Qm of Yn-1 and Qm of Yn. DK wondered whether this kind of analysis would be better if it were based on Qm-1 and Qm of the same year, with a correction being made to the seasonality factor. DG MOVE considered that,to date, the analysis from year to year had been satisfactory, but it was natural that a quarterly analysis would be better. However, this would imply an additional burden on Eurostat and/or the MemberStates.

FR mentioned their agreement with DK on seasonality. FR also observed that it was difficult to collect statistics on urban mobility due to the ticketing policies of the transport companies. DG MOVE is currentlyconducting a study on the data sources with urban stakeholders.

DE estimated that European long- and short-distance surveys would make a significant contribution to reducing the existing data gaps in road traffic and transport, and asked the Commissionto spell out its intentions in this respect[2]

PL noted that the fact that the congestion concept had not yet been defined madeit difficult to collect any relevant statistics. DG MOVE emphasized that,in the absence of statistical data, indicators on congestion were currently produced viatransport models, such as Transtools.

Conclusion

The CGST took note of the latest developments and trendsin EU transport policy. Eurostat added that it would reflect onthe seasonality issue, in keeping with the resources available to do so.

Item8: Work programme for the coming years

In 2010 Eurostat carried out a wide-ranging consultation, on both the users’ side (policy DGs) and the suppliers’ side (Directors’ Groups). This consultation encompassed the annual programmes for 2011 and 2012, as well as the five-year programme for 2013-2017.

The work programme for 2011 had been formally adopted. On the occasion of the consultation,Mr Rüte, the Director General of DG MOVE,stated “there is no scope for prioritisation on the output side; there is no fat here”. Eurostat recalled its main components, in particular the new activities which concern the initial implementation of transport safety statistics and feasibility studies on aviation, rail transport, intermodal transport, and GHG emissions for three modes (road, air and sea).

For the future, Mr Rütecalled for:

  • an EU Regulation on road VKm;
  • an EU Regulation on road PKm, with a specific breakdown for buses and coaches;
  • an EU-wide passenger mobility survey;
  • databases on vehicle stocks in all modes;

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

  • the revision of Regulation 1108/70 on accounting in transport infrastructures;
  • data on economic and social features;
  • an urban mobility observatory.

According to Eurostat/E6, the first four items (above the dotted line) should concern the CGST, while the others (below the dotted line)should concern other Working Groups and Eurostat's units.

Mr Rüte also made some recommendations regarding in particular the databases on inland and maritime vehicles, cooperation with Eurocontrol, and recourse to modern ICT tools such as e-Freight and e-Maritime.

Regarding the consultation of the BSDG (Business Statistics Directors’ Group),due note was taken of the request expressed by NL, which referred to an EU Regulation on harmonised road traffic expressed in VKm.

NL and CZ asked how they were supposed to proceed in order to provide data on road vehicles. Eurostat regarded the question as premature: at this stage there was only a project for the collection of data on sea vessels. Road vehicles should be considered as part of the next 5-year programme, as long as there wereenough resources.

PL, CZ and DK asked when annex H would be removed from the rail Regulation. Eurostat pointed out that the discontinuation of annex H would require a long procedure of consultation involving the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. Therefore this procedure should include the other modifications to be made in the rail Regulation (see item 6.2 of the agenda). In parallel, an agreement had to be reached with ERA in order to guarantee the continuity of the time series on rail accidents, fatalities and injuries. All this meant that annex H data would still be collected in 2011 and 2012 at least.

IT observed that there was a lot of work to do and that it was necessaryto prioritise. IT proposed to prioritise the Regulations on road traffic and passenger transport.

DK drew attention to the ongoing duality between users’ needs and available budget in the NSIs. It was necessary to prioritise and the selected project(s) had to be of a legal nature in order to mobilise sufficient resources in the Member States.

UKreported that their budget for statistics had been cut and they would welcome any reduction of their burden; noted the increased access to EU microdata for researchers, but drew the CGST’s attention to confidentiality concerns regarding access to road freight microdata. Eurostat replied that they were analysing how to allow access to national microdata in the MemberState in question, not necessarily in Eurostat’s premises; and that the particular case of road freight microdata would be discussed under item 6.1 of the agenda. Finally UKmentioned that they collected statisticsforpassenger coach transport but this was only possible where public subsidies were available. It would be difficult to justify an EU Regulation and the increased burden would not be welcomed.

Conclusion

The CGST had a first discussion on the needs and priorities for the coming period (2011-2017). Resources are more limited than ever, and therefore any project on a voluntary basis would have little chance of receiving any resources. There was a consensus to prioritisethe Regulation on road VKm. For the remainder, the projects would have to be spread over time according to their level of priority and maturity. Eurostat would bear in mind the need to reduce the burden where it was possible. In this respect the discontinuation of the annex H of the rail Regulation would receive full attention, and more generally the discussions on burden reduction wouldcontinue.

Item 5: Progress report by Eurostat in all processes

Detailed reports on the activities implemented during the past year had been made available to the participants in document N°5.

Eurostat presented the most recent data reception status in all processes except for the Common Questionnaire. The data managers (or project managers) made a distinction between timeliness and quality issues, and described the situation and prospects in all cases of concern.

IT (which hadgiven rise toconcernsin several processes) had made significant improvements in 2010, and announced thattheyexpected to reach full compliance in 2011.

IE mentioned some recent problems in the maritime process, but was confident that they could be resolved in the shortterm.

Conclusion

The CGST reviewed the data reception status of the processes. Eurostat recalled that the escalation procedure in cases of non-compliance, which consists of messages and letters at ever higher levels of the hierarchy, had to be regardedas a support to the operational level in the participating countries; and that Eurostat had made plans to provide the data suppliers with the necessary tools to check the validity of data and to correct errors at source: this wouldresult in an improvementin quality, as well as a reduction of theburden bothfor the countries and for Eurostat.

Item 6: Processes

6.1Road freight transport statistics

Eurostat presented the current situation and the prospects with regard to three issues of a legal nature.

  • As for the new legal basis for dissemination, the driving idea was to exploit the available data more effectively. Hence Eurostat had prepared new B-tables, new C-tables (related to cabotage) and new D-tables (related to the foreign contribution to transport on national territories). It should be noted that table B18, which contained too many confidential cells, had so farnot been considered fit for dissemination.
  • As for the access to microdataby researchers, there were two options available (not free of charge) at this stage: either involving the preparation of anonymised microdata (such as D-tables) or implying the granting of access via a secured room on Eurostat premises. However, before having access to any microdata, the requesting research body had to be deemed admissible as such and its research project also hadto be accepted. Moreover, the Member States concerned had tobe consulted and had to formally approve any such request on a case by case basis.
  • As for the development of the basic legal act (Reg 1172/98), it had started out as a codification exercise, but hadsince become a recast, as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the emergence of so-called “delegated acts”. The exercise was still on course,in spite of the efforts recently made by the BE Presidency. The main stakeholders were the Council Working Party, the TRAN Committee of the EP and, as from 1 January 2011, the HU Presidency. However, no items of technical substance are involved in these discussions.

NL, DE and DK expressed their concern about thechanges in the basic legal act. According to them, the emergence of delegated acts would give the Commission too much discretionary power, for example to modify variables. Preliminary discussions should have taken place in the road freight WG and the CGST.

Eurostat explained that the issue of delegated acts had been and was still being discussed in the ESS Committee. Eurostat had already stated that delegated acts would only be used if they did not involve any substantial change in the implementation of legal obligations. In all other cases, the issue would be discussed in the appropriate WGs. But in fact, it would be very difficult to report in these WGs on the current negotiations about delegated acts which were still ongoing between the Council and the European Parliament. In any event, Eurostat was committed to act as it had in the past:in full transparency with the Member States.

PL enquired whether the negotiations between the Council and the Parliament would last beyond the end of June 2011 (after which PO wouldtake over the Presidency of the Council). Eurostat replied that this was likely.

Conclusion

Eurostat informed the CGST ofthe current legal issues relating to road freight transport statistics. In particular:

  • the procedure for researchers to access road freight transport microdata was noted and accepted;
  • Eurostat’s stance regarding the use of delegated acts in the future was clarified, in response to the concerns expressed by the Member States.

6.1AILSE (Index of Locations for Statistics in Europe)

This tool, which had been available since September 2010, had now become WebILSE, an interactive web service to map geographical places in NUTS regions. As from January 2011, the responsibility of WebILSE would be transferred from Eurostat/E6 to Eurostat/E4 (Regional statistics and geographical information) under the responsibility of Mr Oliver Heiden. A choice had still to be made between two versions of the NUTS classification, a new type of output in the form of maps, and the batch processing of data.

NL, DK, PL intervened as follows.

  • Would the batch function be available as a web service? - Although this was technically possible, the fact that the service was hosted in DG DIGIT meant that it was not under the control of Eurostat.
  • Would the ICAO codes and UN Locodes be incorporated in the NUTS classification? - For the maritime ports this would become available as soon as the lists were harmonised for all the participating countries, i.e. by the end of 2011.
  • The next update of the NUTS classification would enter in force in 2012, but the preparatory work was due to commence in 2011. When would WebILSE's files be updated? -The update would take place in 2011 and the users would be informed as soon as it was finalised.
  • How could the user know that the basic files had been updated with a new version of the NUTS? - A user-oriented version management had still to be integrated in the tool.
  • Some postcodes might be inconsistent with the NUTS classification in force. In such a case achoice had to be made.- Eurostat has still to look into this issue.

Conclusion